↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

The reliability and validity of a Chinese-version Short Health Anxiety Inventory: an investigation of university students

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
The reliability and validity of a Chinese-version Short Health Anxiety Inventory: an investigation of university students
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s83501
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yonggui Yuan, Yuqun Zhang, Rui Liu, Guohong Li, Shengqin Mao

Abstract

The Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI) is widely used in English-speaking populations, with good reliability and validity. For further research needs in the Chinese population, it was translated into a Chinese version (CSHAI). Furthermore, the reliability, validity, and cutoff score were examined in a nonclinical population in the People's Republic of China. Three hundred and sixteen undergraduates were evaluated by a set of questionnaires including CSHAI, Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Fifty-eight students completed CSHAI again after 30 days. The two-factor model had satisfactory fit indices. The correlation coefficients between each item with the CSHAI total and each subscale were between 0.386 and 0.779. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients of CSHAI total and its subscales were 0.742, 0.743, and 0.788, respectively, and the split-half coefficients were 0.757, 0.788, and 0.912. The test-retest correlation coefficients were, respectively, 0.598 (P<0.001), 0.539 (P<0.001), and 0.691 (P<0.001). Convergent validities were respectively 0.389-0.453, 0.389-0.410, and 0.250-0.401, and discriminant validities were -5.689 (P<0.001), -5.614 (P<0.001), and -3.709 (P<0.001). The cutoff score was 15. CSHAI showed good factor structure, reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, and 15 was determined to be the appropriate cutoff score for screening health anxiety.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 12 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,340,005
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,781
of 2,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,947
of 263,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#78
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.